Jersey Unreported Judgments

Care order - discharge of interim care order and granting of a residence order in favour of the grandparents.

[2018]JRC072B

Royal Court

(Family)

18 April 2018

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN (INTERIM CARE ORDER)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002

Advocate P. F. Byrne for the Minister.

Advocate A. T. H. English for the First Respondent.

Advocate L. V. Helm for the Second Respondent.

Advocate N. S. H. Benest for the child.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for leave to withdraw his application for a care order in respect of John (this is not his real name) who is aged 8, together with certain ancillary orders. 

2.        On 24^th April, 2017, the Court made an interim care order in respect of John.  The background to the Minister's application is set out in the subsequent judgment of the Court dated 22^nd May, 2017, (In the matter of John (Care order) [2017] JRC 073).  In briefest outline the first and second respondents are John's maternal grandfather and step grandmother, who we shall refer to as the grandparents.  He has lived with them since birth, albeit initially in the care of his mother.  However, she left Jersey in 2011, and has had no contact with him since then.  Her whereabouts are unknown and it has not proved possible to serve any of the current proceedings upon her.  We therefore agree that it is appropriate to proceed in her absence.  John's father moved to Madeira some time ago and is thought to have died. 

3.        In 2011 a residence order was made in favour of the grandparents in respect of John.  As set out in the May judgment, John made a disclosure in March 2017, which suggested physical abuse at the hands of the grandparents.  He was placed in foster care by agreement and, as just stated, an interim care order was made on 24^th April, following a contested hearing.  John remained in foster care at that stage.  Police enquiries followed but there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone. 

4.        Dr Briggs carried out a psychological assessment of the grandparents and Dr Carritt-Baker prepared a psychological report on John.  The latter report showed that John has a complex neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) which had not previously been recognised.  He shows a mixed presentation of characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

5.        Both reports concluded in effect that the grandparents were capable of providing good enough parenting providing that they had considerable support from the Minister.  The report from Dr Carritt-Baker indicated that the existence of the NDD raised issues as to the reliability of the disclosures which John had made. 

6.        The foster placement came to an end on 9^th October, 2017.  In the light of the reports the Minister placed John back with the grandparents under the interim care order with a package of support.  The final hearing was adjourned to see how that placement went. 

7.        The evidence before us this morning is that the placement has gone well; John is happy and wishes to stay with his grandparents.  The Minister has concluded that on the evidence he cannot show that the threshold criteria for making a care order are satisfied.  Accordingly he seeks leave to withdraw the care proceedings and for a residence order to be made in favour of the grandparents, the previous residence order having been automatically determined on the making of the interim care order. 

8.        The Minister appreciates that John has complex needs as a result of his NDD and that the grandparents may struggle to meet these needs at times.  Furthermore, there remain some concerns about the nature of disciplinary measures which they may impose.  Accordingly the Minister has listed in the care plan a package of support measures and has also suggested that a family assistance order be made for six months.  The Minister has specifically confirmed this morning, as was indeed confirmed in the reports, that the support measures will continue after the expiry of the family assistance order, John being a child in need.  We consider that to be extremely important.  It is clear from the evidence that the grandparents will need continuing support along the lines of that proposed in the care plan. 

9.        The grandparents support the Minister's proposal.  The guardian has considered the matter carefully.  She points out, correctly, that the proposed course of action is not free from risk and she too emphasises the need for continuation of the support measures beyond the six month period.  However, she says that John is happy with the grandparents and that, apart from one incident which she mentions, there is no evidence of anything untoward happening since John was placed back with the grandparents in October.  Having considered the matter carefully, on balance she supports the course proposed by the Minister. 

10.      Having considered the detailed material before us we agree that the course proposed by the Minister and supported by the guardian, the experts and the grandparents is the best way forward in John's interests.  Accordingly we make the following orders:-

(i)        We grant the Minister leave to withdraw his application for a care order.

(ii)       We discharge the interim care order.

(iii)      We make a residence order under Article 10 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in favour of the grandparents.

(iv)      We make a family assistance order under Article 16 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Authorities

In the matter of John (Care order) [2017] JRC 073. 

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.